Tag: Antiwar movement

Dear Fellow Citizens:

For the past three years, the United States Department of Justice has been relentlessly engaged in actions geared toward covering up my reports and investigations into my allegations. These actions include gagging the United States Congress, blocking court proceedings in my case by invoking state secret privilege, quashing a subpoena for my deposition on information regarding 9/11, withholding documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and preventing the release of the Inspector General’s report of its investigations into my reports and allegations. My reports, many of which have been confirmed by the United States Senate and leaked memos by the Department of Justice, involve criminal conduct against our national interests, serious security breaches threatening our intelligence, intentional mistranslation of intelligence with severe consequences, and intentional blocking of certain terrorism and criminal cases from being investigated by our government officials.

This is not just about our government’s relentless fight against me, and my information. This fight is also directed against what is known as “the public’s right to know” in our essential oversight responsibility over our government as responsible citizens. These actions by our government are not geared toward protecting the "national security" of the United States. On the contrary, they are endangering our national security by covering up facts and information related to criminal activities against this country and it’s citizens. The Department of Justice and this administration are fully aware that making this information public will bring about the question of accountability. And they do not want to be held accountable. It is for these reasons that I have been striving to get the Congress to release the long overdue report by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, and to hold its own public hearings regarding these issues. In a letter written July 9, 2004 to the Attorney General, regarding the classification of the entire report on my case by the Inspector General’s office, Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy stated:

"We fear that the designation of information as classified in these cases serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability. Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public’s interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight. To do otherwise could damage the public’s confidence not only in the government’s ability to protect the nation, but also in the government’s ability to police itself."

I know that it is very easy to get discouraged with the system and give up the fight. I know sometimes it makes sense to consider attempts to bring about transparency and accountability futile. I know many of us believe that by voting once every few years, paying our taxes in a timely manner, and abiding by the law, we more than fulfill our obligations as citizens of this great democratic nation. I myself used to sincerely believe that. There have been times when I came so very close to giving up, knowing that all those available channels I had pursued, from the Congress to the Courts, from the IG’s office to the 9/11 Commission, became rock-solid walls and ears deafened to the voice of public concern. Giving up would have been the easiest way to stop the time, energy, and financial resources being consumed in my fruitless battle to bring about truth, transparency, and accountability. For me, there were times it would have been very easy to stop, to get disgusted and give up; if it weren’t for those words of wisdom from our founding Fathers who said: "The price of liberty, is eternal vigilance." If it weren’t for the fact that I have lived in countries where the words freedom, liberty, transparency, and accountability represented fantasy, surrealism, and impossibility; which gave me more reasons to treasure what this great country and its Constitution offered me as its citizen.

I was told so many times by so many people that "these issues are so troubling, but this is the government and we can’t do anything about it. We can’t rock the boat." But stop for a second and think about it: We elect the captains of this boat, we maintain and sustain this boat through our taxes, and we, the people, suffer the consequences when this boat malfunctions, as we did on September 11. If we don’t have the right to rock this boat, when this boat or part of it is badly in need of being rocked and repaired, then who does?

Our Congress must fulfill the "checks and balances" responsibilities of the Constitution in the exercise of its fundamental duties, including probing deeper to produce more information about government activities as part of its appropriations, authorization, and oversight functions. We the people have put these representatives in the Congress. We the people have given them the authority to ensure oversight, integrity, transparency, and accountability of our government and our rights. Thus, we the people have the right and the power to demand that our representatives fulfill these obligations.

Government transparency is fundamental to democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Information is the currency of democracy." Our democracy cannot endure without a committed citizenry and an open government that answers to the people. Our democracy has survived because of the participation of its citizenry, which completely depends on the government’s transparency and accountability.

I am asking for your support to do just that – demand government transparency and accountability. Please read the following petition demanding the immediate release of the long-completed IG Report, followed by public Congressional hearings, by clicking on the link below. If you agree, if you want answers and accountability, please sign this petition.

Sincerely,
Sibel D. Edmonds

(see 10 for introduction)
8 next

Good news out of Madison, “progressive” bellwether John Nichols has rung out November with
“Accenture pact a boneheaded move.”

The streak lives, still no mention of “Israel” this year, 101 columns down, nine to go.

If John does stumble, it very well may be over the violin incident, Ha’aretz and The Guardian,
“Images from another place, another time” and “Israel shocked by image.”

He could focus on the Jewish angst/Israel losing its soul aspect of the story.

Incidentally, The Guardian quotes novelist Yoram Kaniuk, who happens to be the source of a joke which says all you really need to know about the histroy of the Israeli/Arab conflict. Here it is, as told to Sana Hasan (“Enemy in the Promised Land”).

Continue reading “Nichols Countdown—9”

“The level of criminal operations has receded and is continuing to drop following the operation in Fallujah,” Comical Allawi said on the state-owned Iraqiya television, in response to questions from viewers. “The cleansing in Fallujah of terrorist elements is continuing and we are preparing for the residents to return to their city,” he added.

Comical Allawi announced today that violence is decreasing.

• Attacks have increased against U.S., Iraqi and other targets on the road leading from the center of Baghdad to the city’s international airport, located on the western outskirts of the capital.

  The British Embassy announced Monday that its staff would no longer be permitted to travel on the airport road, which the U.S. State Department has identified as one of the most dangerous routes in Iraq.

• South of the capital, U.S., British and Iraqi forces pressed an offensive aimed at clearing insurgents from an area known as the “triangle of death.” Two Marines were killed there Sunday, U.S. officials said, and British troops escaped serious injury Monday when a bomb exploded next to a Scimitar light tank from the Queen’s Dragoon Guards.
• The Pentagon said Monday the U.S. military death toll in Iraq stands at 1,251, up by 21 since the last reported toll released Nov. 24. That means at least 130 U.S. troops have died in Iraq this month. The deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq was last April, when 135 died.
• In Geneva, the international Red Cross said Iraq’s Red Crescent had set up a relief center in Fallujah to aid civilians, but doctors and nurses have been unable to treat the wounded because of continued fighting between U.S.-led forces and insurgents.

  “There are many civilians who are still trapped in the city and don’t dare to come to the Red Crescent office,” said Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  She said there was a shortage of drinking water in Fallujah and the city water purification station was not working “because there is nonstop fighting around it.”

• At least 50 people have been killed in Mosul in the past 10 days — most of them believed to have been supporters of Iraq’s interim government or members of its security forces.
• In addition, two U.S. Marines were killed in a weekend bombing south of the capital, a U.S. official said Monday. U.S., British and Iraqi forces have been sweeping through the area to clear Sunni insurgents from a string of towns and cities between Baghdad and the Shiite shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala.
• Insurgents stepped up attacks on Iraq’s fledgling security forces, killing seven Iraqi police and guardsmen Monday in a suicide bombing hours after storming a police station north of the capital. Two U.S. soldiers died in a bombing in Baghdad.
• A US military spokesman also reported that 13 marines and two civilians were wounded Monday when mortar shells struck a military base south of Baghdad

Check out Flit on Yushchenko’s skin problem. He quotes a dermatologist:

“Viktor Yushchenko probably has one of two possible medical conditions that would account for his rapid facial changes. The diseases are scleromyxedema or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. He needs a skin biopsy. I cannot conceive how poisoning could cause these changes.”

–Howard Bargman, MD, associate professor of dermatology, University of Toronto

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

local to 9
express to 7

The 9/11 Commission Report, issued in July, recommends that the U.S. “should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law…” It notes that “it is a simple fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world” (Chapter 12.3 [.pdf]).

Now “a report by a Pentagon advisory panel…warns that no public relations plan or information operation can defend America from flawed policies” (NYT). The report states that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights…” (page 40). “U.S. policies on Israeli-Palestinian issues and Iraq in 2003-2004 have damaged America’s credibility and power to persuade” (page 18). (It’s the Policy, Stupid!)

While some appear to be facing “simple facts,” others remain in a state of denial. Consider the case of John Nichols, Associate Editor of The Capital Times and Washington correspondent for The Nation. Nichols is a “progressive” bellwether, probably the most posted writer at Common Dreams.

It was Bush’s “shameless exploitation of the war on terror” that got him re-elected, Nichols feels. Well, gee, terrorism can’t be exploited if there isn’t any. Ergo, if the exploitation bothers one so much, one should address the causes of terrorism.

Nichols writes at least two columns a week for The Capital Times. So far this year, in 100 tries, he has yet to talk about US policy towards Israel/Palestine. Indeed, he has yet to mention “Israel.” Hence, the countdown, 100 columns down, ten to go.

In 2003, John proved himself to be the playful sort, ultimately mentioning “Israel” on December 30. I was doing the countdown by e-mail, maybe it was a mistake to include him on the circulation list. This time, no meddling, let history takes its course.

Some interesting information is coming out on the Palestinian elections in the wake of Marwan Barghouti withdrawing his bid for the PA presidency. Andrew Schamess has this intriguing bit:

On Thursday, Barghouti made a suprise announcement that he would run an independent campaign for President. This threw everybody into a tizzy until he called it off late Thursday night. The best report on this, I thought, was on National Public Radio. The trade-off, it appears, was that Fatah will hold new elections for its ruling Revolutionary Council, for the first time in fifteen years. This will certainly give the younger generation greater power in the organization.

What will this mean for Palestinian policies? Firstly, the younger generation has pressed for more efficient government and an end to patronage and corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Secondly, those raised on armed struggle against an oppressive regime are not likely to lay down their arms and accept whatever compromise suits Israel’s purposes. As Barghouti put it, he stands for resistance and negotiation; Abbas for negotiation without resistance. A third possible consequence, if Barghouti and his constituents are successful, is that a reinvigorated Fatah will regain its credibility among disaffected Palestinians who have gravitated toward Hamas in the past decade.

As for Hamas, Helena Cobban has translated a piece Saida Hamad in East Jerusalem wrote for Hayat which seems to indicate that Hamas may negotiate some quid pro quo on elections at the local level in return for not opposing Abu Mazen, which strategy has been effective for Hizbullah in Lebanon. Read the rest of Helena’s piece for more detail on the possibility of a “Free Barghouti” campaign being part Barghouti’s price for refraining from running for PA president. As for the other likely price, how about Vice President Barghouti on the Fatah ticket?

The info about the possible “Free Barghouthi” campaign. As you can see from the translation I provided, the “old guard” guys in Fateh reportedly promised this to Marwan as part of the quid pro quo they offered him in return for him agreeing not only not stand against Abu Mazen in the January elections, but also (gulp), actually to support him… The other parts of the quid pro quo were: (a ) A commitment to hold the 16th meeting of Fateh’s policymaking General Conference no later than August, so that both the Central Committee and (I assume) the Revolutionary Council can be renewed there through democratic means… (In contrast to much past practice.) Plus (b) the possibility that in connection with the “Free Barghouthi” campaign, Abu Mazen would name Marwan as his “Vice Presidential” candidate in the PA election…So far, it looks as though Marwan drove a pretty hard bargain…